(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): I have a tradition that when building the Heichal and the walls of the Azaros, they set up curtains;

R. Yehoshua: I have a tradition that we may bring Korbanos even though the Mikdash is not standing.

This is because Shlomo's Kedushah was permanent.

Suggestion: R. Eliezer argues. He holds that Shlomo's Kedushah ceased! (Therefore, curtains were needed in order to offer Korbanos until the building was finished.)

Rejection (Ravina): Perhaps all agree that Shlomo's Kedushah was permanent. Each Tana said what he heard!

(R. Yochanan): If one offers Korbanos outside the Mikdash nowadays he is liable, because the first Kedushah was permanent.

(Reish Lakish): He is exempt. The first Kedushah was temporary.

Sanhedrin 11a: R. Shimon ben Gamliel once sent 'we inform you that the pigeons are too young, the sheep are too thin, and the season of Aviv (spring) has not yet come. It is proper in my eyes to add 30 days to the year.'

(Beraisa): Once, Raban Gamliel sent 'the pigeons are too young, the sheep are too thin, the season of Aviv has not yet come. It is proper in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add 30 days to the year.'

See the difference between the early powerful Chachamim (Raban Gamliel) and the later humble Chachamim (R. Shimon ben Gamliel! Even though R. Gamliel was a powerful Nasi, he mentioned that his colleagues agreed. R. Shimon ben Gamliel did not mention his colleagues.)

Rejection: Perhaps Raban Gamliel mentioned his colleagues after he was deposed from being Nasi. (He and R. Elazar ben Azaryah used to alternate being the Nasi.)

Pesachim 74a (Mishnah - R. Tzadok): R. Gamliel once told his slave Tavi to roast Pesach on a griddle.

Shabbos 15a (Beraisa): The following were Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban: Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel (ha'Zaken), and Shimon.

Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:14,15): Shlomo gave permanent Kedushah to the Azarah and Yerushalayim. Therefore, we may offer Korbanos even when the Bayis is not built.

Rebuttal (Ra'avad): There is no source for this.

Kesef Mishneh: The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua against R. Eliezer, and R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish. They hold that the Kedushah is permanent. Also, we follow R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish.

R. Baruch (cited in Kaftor v'Ferach 6): Nowadays, we are Tamei Mes. One who enters the place of the Mikdash is Chayav Kares. However, R. Yechiel (some versions - R. Chaim) of Paris intended to come to Yerushalayim in 5017 (1257 CE) and offer Korbanos nowadays. Tum'ah is not a problem, for Korbanos Tzibur override Tum'as Mes. A Mikveh is Metaher from other Tum'os. The Kedushah of the wall around the city is permanent, to permit eating Ma'aser Sheni inside if the Mizbe'ach is built.

Tosfos (Beitzah 23a): The Gemara says that R. Elazar ben Azaryah used to tithe 13,000 animals every year. This is difficult, for he was after the Churban! R. Elazar ben Azaryah was 18 when he became Nasi after R. Gamliel, who became Nasi only after the Churban, for R. Yochanan ben Zakai (was Nasi and) made enactments after the Churban. before R. Elazar ben Azaryah. Ma'aser Behemah was Batel after the Churban (Bechoros 53a). We can say that it was not Batel immediately after the Churban. Alternatively, R. Elazar ben Azaryah's overseer would tithe for him when the Mikdash stood. Alternatively, he gave a tithe of his animals to the king.

Tashbatz (136): The kingdom killed the elder R. Shimon ben Gamliel. His son R. Gamliel (of Yavneh) was young, so R. Yochanan ben Zakai became Nasi.

She'alas Ya'avetz (1:89): 'The sheep and turtledoves' connotes that they were for Korbanos. R. Gamliel was deposed after the Churban! And surely his son R. Shimon ben Gamliel was after the Churban! With difficulty, we could say that they used the same wording (regarding sheep and turtledoves, but not regarding their colleagues) as their predecessors from before the Churban. I prefer to say that they hold like R. Eliezer (perhaps this should say 'R. Yehoshua' - PF), who says that we may bring Korbanos without a Mikdash, like the Rambam rules. R. Gamliel and his son were shortly after the Churban, and close to the kingdom (Edom). Perhaps the Mizbe'ach was still intact, and they offered Korbanos Tzibur (like they did when building the Beis ha'Mikdash in the days of Ezra), or at least they brought Pesachim. Alternatively, they were always hoping that it will be rebuilt speedily, and they were concerned that there be what is needed for Korbanos Tzibur.

Note: The Tzibur never brings birds!

Ya'avetz (ibid.): I say that if a Kohen has a lineage document validated by Beis Din, this is enough. We are not concerned lest a Beis Din erred. The general Sefer Yuchsin (of lineage of families) was lost, but a Beis Av or family could have a lineage document that we have not yet seen. Also, R. Gamliel (of Yavneh, who was) the master of Tavi, offered Korban Pesach. He was old enough at the time for R. Tzadok to learn Halachos from him. Surely R. Yochanan ben Zakai would not become Nasi over R. Gamliel, who inherited the Nesi'us! Rather, R. Gamliel was too young at the time of the Churban to be Nasi. They offered Korbanos Tzibur after the Churban. Perhaps R. Yochanan ben Zakai was not truly Nasi, for this is only for descendants of David. We do not find that he was from Yehudah. He was called Nasi due to his Chachmah and greatness. It is clear from Shabbos 15a that R. Gamliel of Yavneh was not Nasi before the Churban.

Note: One could say that Shabbos 15a omitted R. Gamliel because most of his reign of Nesi'us was after the Churban. It also omits R. Yochanan ben Zakai; perhaps it only lists Hillel's descendants. Rashi (Rosh Hashanah 31b) holds that R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Nasi. The Gemara says that he was the leader of Yisrael for 40 years. The Rishonim did not say that he was Av Beis Din. There was an Av Beis Din for the five generations from Yosi ben Yo'ezer until Hillel (Chagigah 16b). It seems that this ceased; when Nasan ha'Bavli came to Eretz Yisrael in the days of R. Shimon the son of R. Gamliel of Yavneh, he was appointed Nasi (Horayos 13b)!

Shach (YD 246:11): All agree that after R. Gamliel died, people became weaker, so we may ask while sitting. R. Gamliel told R. Tzadok to stand and ask before the Churban.

Rebuttal (Birkei Yosef 11): People became weaker after the elder R. Gamliel died. Megilah 21a does not say 'elder', but it is in the Tosefta, and the Rambam explains like this. R. Gamliel of Yavneh (the Nasi at the time of R. Tzadok) was Nasi after the Churban. R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Nasi at the time of the Churban, before R. Gamliel was Nasi!

Ha'aros on Birkei Yosef (16): After the kingdom killed R. Shimon ben Gamliel, the father if R. Gamliel of Yavneh, R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Nasi. Tashbatz explains that R. Yochanan ben Zakai became Nasi because R. Gamliel was young. In Pesach Einyaim, the Birkei Yosef proved that R. Gamliel was about 20 years old at the time of the Churban. He was not made Nasi due to fear of the king, who killed his father, but not because R. Gamliel was too young.

Chasam Sofer (2 YD 236): Someone wanted to offer Korbanos in Yerushalayim. They say that Even Shesiyah is in the middle of the dome. R. Akiva Eiger questioned this, for we are Tamei, and we lack Kohanim of definite lineage and stones of the Efod (a garment of the Kohen Gadol like an apron. Kaftor v'Ferach said that Tum'ah is permitted to the Tzibur; he did not answer about Kehunah. No one asked about Bigdei Kehunah, for a Kohen Gadol is not Me'akev; we can offer without him.

Note: This implies that we know how to make Bigdei Kohen Hedyot. The Rambam (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:11) rules that the Avnet of a Kohen Hedyot is of Sha'atnez (like that of a Kohen Gadol), which includes Techeiles. Perush ha'Mishnayos (Menachos 4:1) says that we do not how to dye Techeiles!

Chasam Sofer: R. Chaim held that we can rely on the Chazakah that someone is a Kohen. Nechemyah had Kohanim of definite lineage, so he demoted Kohanim without proof of lineage (Kidushin 69b). We should not be Mevatel Avodah for this reason. Mahari Veil (153) says that we do not give Chalah to a Kohen (even below the age at which he could be Tamei due to emissions) because we are unsure of his lineage. Maharshal says that this is why we do not give Cherem to Kohanim nowadays. The Ya'avetz (1:135) was stringent about Pidyon Bechor. However, Avodah of a Chalal is Kosher b'Di'eved, so we need not be stringent about it. We may rely his mother's Chezkas Kashrus.

Note: Why should Chalah be more stringent than Avodah? It is like Terumah, and we rule like R. Yehoshua (Terumos 8:1), who says that a Chalal who ate Terumah is exempt. The Kesef Mishneh (Hilchos Bi'as Makdish 6:10) learns from here that a Chalal's Avodah is Kosher b'Di'eved even if at the time he knew that he is a Chalal.

Chasam Sofer: According to the opinion that the first Kedushah was not permanent, how could they build Bayis Sheni without the Aron and Keruvim? How could Yisrael build Bayis Rishon and Sheni unlike the Mishkan? Yechezkeil foretold more changes in Bayis Shelishi. Even though "ha'Kol bi'Chsav mi'Yad Hash-m Hiskil" (Hash-m commanded through Nevi'im), Nevi'im may change Torah law only temporarily, for a need! I say that we learn from "k'Chol Asher Ani Mar'eh Oscha Es Tavnis ha'Mishkan... v'Chen Ta'asu." Rashi explains that this is a command for all generations, based on Shevu'os 16b. The Ramban questioned this. I say that "v'Chen Ta'asu" refers to the beginning of the verse. Hash-m will command how future Mikdashos will be different. The Aron was for Hash-m to speak to Moshe - "v'No'adti Lecha Shamah", therefore, it was needed only for the Mishkan.